ITAT Indore set aside the appellate order denying TDS credit after the assessee produced Form 16A and Form 26AS showing deduction and payment of tax by the deductor. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification and grant of eligible credit.
The ITAT Indore held that Section 50C could not be invoked where the difference between actual sale consideration and stamp duty valuation was only 1.19%. The Tribunal directed adoption of actual sale consideration as the full value for capital gains computation.
ITAT Indore set aside the ex parte appellate order after noting that the assessee had died and the legal heirs could not effectively pursue the proceedings. The Tribunal granted one final opportunity for fresh adjudication on merits.
The case examined whether interest earned from co-operative banks qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal held that co-operative banks are also co-operative societies, making such income eligible.
The issue was whether a notice issued before filing of return satisfies Section 143(2) requirements. The Tribunal held such notice is invalid, rendering the assessment void ab initio.
The Tribunal restored appeals dismissed for non-prosecution, citing pandemic-related disruption and sufficient cause. It directed fresh adjudication while imposing costs on the assessee.
The case involved penalty for failure to respond to statutory notices during assessment. The Tribunal reduced the penalty after both parties agreed on a lower amount to resolve the dispute.
The issue involved denial of exemption for failure to attach audited accounts with Form 10B. The Tribunal held such lapse to be procedural and directed reconsideration, emphasizing that substantive compliance cannot be denied for technical defects.
The issue involved denial of LTCG exemption based on allegations of penny stock manipulation. The Tribunal held that without direct evidence or nexus, such additions cannot be sustained.
The Tribunal found inconsistency between payment date and share allotment date, raising doubts about the transaction. It held that these factual issues require verification. The matter was remanded to the AO for fresh examination.
